Total posts: 2,082
-->
@DavidAZ
I accidently skipped this. What is the "problem of evil"?
It probes the three "omni" qualities of god: Omniscience (knows all), omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good). Euripides, I believe.
Does god know about evil? If not, then he is not omniscient.
If he knows about evil, can god prevent evil? If not, then he is not omnipotent.
Can god prevent evil, but chooses not to? Then he is malevolent.
There are responses and apologetics for it from many different schools of thought, but that's certainly something to chew on.
I got to listen firsthand to what priests were teaching her during first communion classes.Please expound.
I guess I forgot or didn't absorb what it was that was being taught when I was little, but the priest was insistent that the words turned the crackers into REAL FLESH of a 2000 year old person, and the wine into REAL BLOOD of a 2000 year old person, and that somehow drinking and eating it wasn't symbolic, it was literal magic. That god was always watching, he used the term "like a sky daddy," which just felt wrong as hell. That without it, you definitely go to hell, and that a 7 year old had to go confess sins...it was disturbing, I had like a visceral reaction to it, and at the time I was still a practicing semi-believer.
Curious if you knew their denomination of Christianity.
Afraid I don't, I think I kind of lump all of those evangelical denominations into very few buckets (I don't believe all evangelicals are Westboro Baptists,or handle snakes, for example, but beyond that stuff there's not a lot of distinction for me).
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
At what age and with what issues did you catholic decline start?
At around 13, when I was in confirmation class. I can't say there was a single "issue" that started me down the road, rather it was like a loose thread on an old sweater. The one that sticks out the most is that when I asked a lay person instructor what happened after death to my jewish friends, their answer was "well, to get into heaven you have to love Jesus and follow Catholic rules, so..." My jewish friend wasn't Catholic, but other than that, he seemed okay to me! Why should he be in a pit of fire forever over something he had no control over? thought a young Ludofl3x. And thus, the first tug, and it unraveled over a long time. I even tried to be "saved" at one point (because I was working for a couple of really devout Christians who were super nice to me, but would always be talking about their faith, not in a nefarious way), but that was even worse (they said my parents would go to hell because they're Catholic, and I should try to convert them to save them...I was 15). I still tried to wear the sweater, raggedy though it was, until we had our first child, and I got to listen firsthand to what priests were teaching her during first communion classes.
I'm just saying that if your mind is tainted with fantasies or bad information, you will treat your wife with less than par love.
My point exactly :).
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
'd say, mathematically, there could always be a possibility since the universe is so vast and infinite, but with what we have to use for proof for intelligent life is near zero and more evidence points to man's inventions. And I used intelligent life assuming that's what the OP had in mind, not just bacteria or other microbes. I would assume this topic would cover spaceship flying creatures that could communicate freely with human kind and be on par with their abilities to build and destroy. The whole idea of OP's post would be to say that there was proof of evolution and that we (humans) were not the only advanced creatures in the universe, therefore making the idea of Gods and religion obsolete.
Then I think we can agree: while there likely exists somewhere a form of life, even intelligent life, the vast expanse of space and the laws of physics make such a probability indistinguishable from impossible.
As for angels and demons, I see what you mean. Where are they coming from or go to when they are done with your scary dark closet at night? I think they are not corporal, meaning they have no real life span or home or idea of time. Like a ghost I guess or maybe energy. We wouldn't be able to find the "realm of angels and demons" just as much as we wouldn't be able to touch the "throne of God".
And this is exactly why I think they're less likely than aliens: we know that our universe, for all intents and purposes, exists inasmuch as we share it with each other. We have never been able to demonstrate that something exists outside of space and time, because those are the literal two preconditions for existence to happen. Therefore, I think it's likely that angels and demons are inventions of the human mind, much like I think alien technology, or what we're mistaking for that, is the invention of human minds and hands. If we can't demonstrate that a different 'realm' for lack of a better word exists, then there can't be a good reason to believe something lives there and interacts with us.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Actually, I would like to hear more if you have time. I enjoy stories.
Glad to share, anything specific you're curious about I'm happy to answer.
And as for mental struggles, it's not psychotics or anything, just a daily grind on my self worth. I have been told many times that I beat myself up, but I cannot bring myself to the point to say that I am "good" or other such terms.For someone to be so full of themselves and never see themselves for what they really are is revolting in my mind.
This is what I was kind of hoping for, that you're not talking about like serious medical issues. Does the last sentence connect in the first part, such that you think ALL people are inherently "bad" people who struggle against their baser desires and instincts to varying degrees? I really don't know enough about you to say you're a good or a bad person, but my guess is you're right around the average, like most of us. We all have moments we're not proud of, I do all the time, but we also have the ability to really do good things, on a small scale, with almost no effort or cost to us at all. I bet, for example, you hold the door for an elderly person, or donate time or money to charity.
I don't believe God condones the evil, but it almost seems he doesn't care about it either.
Ever thought about what's commonly called "the problem of evil"? Sometimes called the problem of suffering.
there has to be standard across the board or else there would be no standard really. We are part of a club, so to speak, so we wear the "uniform".
For me this is kind of the core appeal of all organized, even loosely organized, religion. It co-opts our social nature with a number of other factors we've evolved and bang, you're in "the club." I went backwards here because I think this is really interesting: and frankly both insightful and self aware:
We, as in humankind, have a tendency to not see what our actions do. We interact with others and our actions with others will affect them one way or another. Now, I do not believe that most people want to purposely hurt other people. I think we all are trying to live in relative harmony with others. So, take your marriage for example. You have the fullest intent on keeping that marriage safe, prosperous, loving, etc. Nobody goes into a marriage thinking how much they can hurt or destroy the other person, BUT we have paradigms or doctrines that will shape the way of we think is good. For example, my mother left my brothers and I to live with my dad when I was 8 and I never lived with another woman figure until I got married. So my understanding of how a woman operated and thought was really given by the boys in school and that usually from movies they had seen and porn sites. I also resented my mother for abandoning us, so the woman figure in my mind was tainted. So, fast forward to my adult years and getting married to my wife and I love this woman to death. She is my only. She is my everything. BUT I couldn't treat her with the love and respect that she deserved because the way I thought about a woman had stunted my abilities to fully love. So, the way we perceive our word will shape how we treat others. If we ingest the lies from Hollywood or Andrew Tate, we will refuse the Biblical way of loving our wives and try to follow (although unknowingly) the ways of the world
Your observations are largely very sensible, your struggles are genuine and totally understandable! But as written, they do not in any way require the bible, Andrew Tate or whatever "Hollywood" means to be so. I would bet if you removed the bible entirely, you'd still try to love your wife the best you can. That's what I do. It's not always as easy as I wished it were, it's not a hollywood movie, I watch a lot of those, but it's 25 years now. 18 of them as an atheist.
I put scare quotes around Hollywood because there's a lot of hidden stuff in there that I'm not going to accuse you of, but more so that you understand how I hear that when you say it. Some people mean "jews" when they say it. Some people mean "gays." Some people mean "fairy tale stories." I'm going to assume you mean the last one, you seem reasonable enough!
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
There is no such thing as intelligent life (aliens) outside Earth. There is no proof. Only hear-say and odd happenings.
Strictly speaking, you're conflating two different notions here. It's simply not possible to make the first statement based on the evidence available. The universe is literally larger and older than anyone can even begin to understand, and how many other celestial bodies have we done first hand research on?
The topic also says LIFE, not intelligent life. So we could (and I believe eventually WILL) be talking about microbial life, or the evidence thereof, in the ice we find on Mars, or in particles ejected from Enceladus. Would Jesus have died for this microbial life? THe existence of such life presents a lot of questions for all religions, make no mistake, but seems unlikely to sway true believers.
To say that we're alone here is to imply that we've explored the whole of it and reached that conclusion. It seems pretty unlikely to me that no intelligent life exists anywhere but here; mathematically it doesn't equal zero, even if the number is infinitesimally small. The probable existence of intelligent life does not in any way mean that such life has or even could interact with ours, in fact THAT part seems impossible to me, based on physics, so I agree with you, the stuff we want so desperately to think is aliens or alien tech, almost any other explanation makes more sense (even those that sound conspiratorial are more likely, unless those conspiracies feature alien life). I'm curious though:
it is possible people do have visitations from demons or angels
This is somehow even less likely than actual alien interaction, and I'll show you how I see that. Where would angels and demons visit FROM, exactly? Is it within this universe?
The religion is not based on that there is not alien life but rather that there is a God who died for us. And if aliens do exist, God created them too (animals) and gave us (humans) dominion over them also.
I bolded this because wouldn't this mean that god died for us AND NOT THEM? This is indeed one of my favorite things to think about. Why would we have dominion over another race of beings that aren't from this planet and haven't been mentioned in the bible at all? It doesn't say god created martians, because Hebrews didn't even know the earth was round, forget knowing there are other planets out there. Sheesh, the bible didn't even know Australia or the Americas existed, saying it somehow grants man dominion over a race of beings (they wouldn't be animals, they'd be taxonomically undefined) from a moon of a planet that's never mentioned anywhere in the text seems quite a leap. But it's not unexpected! The whole reason we thought we were entitled to dominion over animals is because people want to conclude they're so special and different and yes, SUPERIOR to animals inherently, because why else would we have so much control over them and other resources? The answer HAS To be because some unseen entity loves us so dearly, and not that it's a result of an evolutionary advantage: advanced pattern recognition. The more research we do on animals and how they think, interact, communicate, the closer that gap is, though. For example, the idea of fairness (the precursor to what we think of as "justice") is clearly evident in monkeys, dogs, and elephants at least.
ETA as to the topic, I actually did a topic on this a very long time ago, or at least a similar one, and I was not surprised to find that even if presented with literally incontrovertible evidence of a deity OTHER THAN ONE'S OWN existing and being responsible for everything in the universe, most Christians said "I'd rather be punished and keep believing in Christianity than admit it was wrong." People cling really closely to those beliefs, and as you point out David, will find a way to make them fit into reality as it changes rather than decide if those beliefs belong in reality.
I'm pretty jealous of the Arizona sky in the summertime, when you can go out and literally see the arms of the galaxy stretch out in front of you. It's just inspiring, like enough to bring tears to your eyes if you're like me, and a little stoned :). Take advantage of that sky, David!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God exists because how would anything exist without a God like figure the idea that reality has gone on forever and repeated itself is wrong, because then matter comes from basically nothing.
Argument from incredulity.
No one created God because he doesn't exist like you and me. Imagine time, space and matter exist in a tiny little box. God exists outside of that box and created that box.The box is the universe. In this scenario.
Special pleading.
And you can't choose love without free will.
What happens to people who die without loving god? If the answer is any sort of punishment or unequal treatment of their immortal souls, then what you're talking about is awful close to an abusive relationship and extortion.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
The reason we are so careful/extreme with influences is that it can plant a seed and grow into something that can hurt others.
You're an interesting cat, David, always appreciate a civil interaction, I can't overstate it.
As to the above, is this really why you think you've been taught that these influences can grow into something that hurts others? You said prior to this that you have some ability to regulate yourself, so you sort of select what or when to ignore these prohibitions. What, do you think, keeps a person like me from hurting others, given that my entire worldview is secular, open to all sorts of outside influences, seeking out new ideas and so on? I don't think I have any special power of self control (far from it, on occasion, I'm afraid). I think I just usually bristle when I hear that some larger organization is prohibiting members from interacting with the wider world, because I think those sorts of rules are there to protect the larger entity, rather than the individual.
I personally believe that man has sought out new inventions and devices. So the idea that God made them is not the case.
So, this is consistent with a 'deus otiosus,' a god that created everything and then kind of retired to watch what happens. I do not believe this is the god you follow, I think you told me that you believe in the omniscient god, a god that knows everything for all time. If this is the case, as we discussed, such a god is incompatible with free will as it's traditionally understood, because he literally cannot be surprised by any outcome. I agree with BOTH of these sentences (obviously for a different reason). If you believe in a god that has a plan for each and every individual on earth, then I'm afraid I don't see how god isn't ultimately responsible for all inventions, from the James Webb Telescope to nuclear warheads. It seems pretty messed up to me, under those circumstances, to consider man (god's most beloved creation, as I understand it) interacting with stuff god made so harmful that you're not supposed to do it. But then, we're talking about the same character who planted the tree that caused all the problems in the first place :).
I know I am a bad person, due to the understanding of knowing what I am capable of and that I need help and a group of others who want the same like me. I would think a good person would have good thoughts all the time and not have to struggle with what runs through my brain sometimes.
This one's troubling for me, but I don't know "what you're capable of" or the things you struggle with mentally. Maybe they're real problems, and I don't want to be glib about them if so. Let me say that in general, this "I know I'm a bad person" mentality is one of the things that led me out of my own faith. I'm not. I doubt you are, either. The fact that you STRUGGLE with what you think is bad, is an indicator that you're good. People who are bad don't struggle with being bad. They just do it. And again, unless you believe in a god with no plan, no vision for the future, anyone we consider 'bad', they're just doing what they were made to do.
Why was that last leap hardest for you? Can you explain?
Big question! I grew up in a traditional Italian American Catholic family, so to realize I didn't believe any of it was upsetting at first personally, then I realized I was going to end up disappointing my family. Worse, I was going to make my mom and dad and grandparents all think they did something wrong with me, that they would lose me and I would go to hell, I mean you can imagine all the ways a person can spiral down paths like that. That's a lot for a person to carry, but as it turned out, all that was only temporary, and they learned I'm still the exact same person they loved and raised, I'm still a good person, I'm not out there raping and pillaging because I don't think there's a punishment for doing so or a reward for NOT doing so. And as I was realizing it, I had to recognize a lot of hard results that would come after, like the idea that I will just eventually no longer exist, which means that I'll never be reunited with those that I loved, those that loved me, and eventually I'll be lost to history like everyone else. That was really difficult to adjust to, but now, I find it the most profoundly inspiring and liberating notion you can imagine. And not because I "just wanna sin!" (which I've seen atheists accused of by Christians, not saying you're accusing me as such). More if you like on the topic, but I don't want to bore you with my own stories.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
I do not have internet in my home (I'm actually using my work computer right now).
Well, I'll count myself lucky for the conversation we're currently having, because it seems like you're doing it at risk of your immortal soul :-). That's kind of tongue in cheek, but seriously, if that's what you believe, that exposing yourself to the outside world via vehicles like the internet is deleterious to your eternal fate, then I have to ask, why are you doing it? Isn't being here in the first place risking you thinking about all the secular stuff you're not supposed to?
Do you ever wonder why, if these things are so bad for you, the god you believe in made them so pervasive and easily accessible? That's an honest question.
I'm not sure I'd accept Brennan Manning (a laicized priest and a self identified Christian from my very cursory google research) as the authority on why atheists are atheists. Honestly, I've never spoken to or heard from another atheist that they don't believe in gods because of how someone else behaved. I'm not saying it's not possible, I just think that sounds like more a reason to leave a church or THE church, rather than a reason to reject god in general. I think maybe he's cramming a lot of leaps into a pithy sentence, like instead of saying the whole alphabet, he's saying A B Y Z, which leaves out quite a bit. Sure, if you leave a church, you're doing so because it's not fulfilling some need you have, which might eventually lead to you questioning things, but usually those people go into that "I'm not religious but I am a believer in God" phase, which pupates into "I'm not really a believer in god, but I'm a spiritual person" which can, but does not always, lead to "I don't believe in god." That last leap was the hardest for me to make, for what it's worth.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Good to see you active here my friend! And no it doesn't, don't be so humble.
a true Christian is not supposed to be conformed to this world but rather transformed. In other words, not follow(imitate) this world's fads, fashions, ideas etc. Most today's "Christians" are undistinguishable from a "sinner". They still dress like the world, they still talk like the world, they still allow influence from the world, etc. They never made a change except they like to bark about salvation and condemn others, but yet still live loose like all the others.
There's a lot of the use of the word "they" here, which I take it is to distinguish some other group from you, is that accurate? If so, can you describe how, in practical terms, you adhere to these "true Christian" tenets? In other words, what sort of fad or fashion or idea is it that you specifically reject? I hope it's skinny jeans on men and mom jeans on women, for there we will find common ground. How do you eliminate influence from the world in your life? It seems pretty hard...
I have heard that the biggest reason for atheism is that a person will claim to know God and then just go back to what they did before they "accepted the Lord".
An interesting assertion. From whom have you heard this? The reason for mine has nothing to do with any Christians or how they behave, it's much less judge-y than that. Don't get me wrong, NOW I totally judge those people as hypocrites :-), but that's separate from my lack of belief in any god. This sounds more like a reason that a certain Christian might decide to leave their specific denomination or church for something more stringent.
when the "Christian" movement teams up with other religions and other political movements, it really is just another worldly group disguising themselves as such.
Well spotted! I'd add that it's extra cynical in political movements to co-opt religious virtue, because you're taking advantage of a person's core beliefs in a way that is disingenuous, and adding a religious bent to any political position effectively allows you to discriminate against others with a holy sanctification to hold up bigotry (not necessarily cross burning bigotry, but something that might seem innocuous).
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
The truth is that true Christianity is different than most ways of life.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Oh, can I guess? Is it "because it makes me feel smarter than everyone else, because I'm in the know and everyone else is a libtard sheeple lapping up the establishment gruel from progressive blogs like The New York Times"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Honest question, do you ever wonder why you're so obsessed with this 'debate' or issue? You seem to have a real hard on for transgender and LGBT issues, man. The world is a big place with a lot of different kinds of people in it, and so many more important things to worry about, but you really do start a lot of topics on these themes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
there's so much human trafficking that's connected to it, and I don't think it's properly regulated. There's no way to tell the difference between consensually uploaded and nonconsensually uploaded content.
Agree here entirely. I've made the decision that I'd rather pay a site that has actual non-porn star people in relationships having sex, I find it much less objectionable. I'm not sure I agree that porn is bad for society as a principle, because it's been around literally since the first dick drawing was probably about six seconds after a cave man figured out how to draw on a cave wall, but I definitely think it's a little darker now than it used to be.
Created:
Posted in:
Just wondering if there were any reactions on either side to the recent news that because of a law Utah passed (the law didn't ban porn, it had to do with age verification requirements), Pornhub, which you know you've been on, has blocked access to their website in Utah. Perhaps coincidentally, and this is true, the searches in Utah on google are showing a significant uptick in VPN searches :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
The way of morals have changed from 100 years ago. It used to be illegal for women to wear pants, adulatory was considered a crime, and even Christmas was outlawed (It was considered a Catholic Holiday) and the list goes on. Now we are in a time where homosexuality is celebrated, boys can walk into girls bathrooms if they claim to be one and drag shows are televised and the list goes on. It is constantly sliding into a more immoral society.
I know we just are going to disagree on this stuff, but for the record I just don't get how these are immoral given that it'd have to be part of god's plan. Especially the homosexuals and transgenders, I mean he made them, he planned for them, so who are we to say what they're doing is immoral. What is the MORAL approach to homosexuality, or transgenderism? Is it that they should just have to go back to living in shame and anxiety?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
This is a problem, wouldn't you agree?I do agree and again, the mystery of God. :) I'd love to know the beginings.
So we can agree then that both of us think that in some way or another, at one point, nothing was alive, and at some later point, something was. In my case, it's simple single cell life. In your case, it's God. Is that fair to say?
I'm saying that a symbiotic relationship such as a bee hive must evolve together or at the exact same time (drones, workers, queen, food, etc). One cannot evolve before or after the other. So if the idea of random chance of these 4 things (drones, workers, queens and food) all being evolved at the same time and be around the same area for them to meet and create their hive and then have food to sustain it and then create more bees, then the odds are really mathematically impossible. By mathematically impossible, meaning no chance. I tried to dig it up but there is an probability that is considered "no chance" after a certain point of odds.
But they don't all have to evolve at the same time, at all. If you wanted to create a working beehive from scratch today, without any bees, yes, you'd have to create them all at once, but that's not what happens. Instead you have one form of "protobee" that evolves each way, and as that benefits the society and reproduction of bees, those traits continue. They don't in any way have to appear all at once.
I think the definition of evolution for the virus does not entail the whole of the evolution theory here. We see the ability of a creature to adapt or survive the environment, not become something different. Just like the finches on the Galapagos Islands and their beaks. (Darwin's observations)
Due respect sir, but the mutation of the virus is textbook evolution. It doesn't go kind-to-kind, admittedly, but we also agree there isn't a time scale we can use to observe this transformation as it takes thousands and thousands of years. Like hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Occasionally yes, you see something noticeable like the finches, or the moths who changed from gray to white and back in the course of five generations in response to local pollution, or the fish who speciated (sticklebacks, I think?), but the vast majority of evolution occurs at the cellular level.
Yes, I do think that. It is not in full effect right now, but it will turn out that way. It has to turn that way if the world will turn to a one world system. (More conspiracy!) Also, the idea of God doesn't have to go away as much as the true belief of God must go away. Of that 90%, how many are still doing "evil" things contrary to the Bible? Do they really believe in God if they don't follow his word? How much of the God belief is "ecumenical", meaning a belief that doesn't offend others and is all inclusive? I know of plenty of churches here in AZ that are "come as you are, love and don't offend" kind of standards. I understand the come as you are, but a man must change his ways in order to repent and a ecumenical approach doesn't demand a change to the man. (not trying to preach here).
I don't believe the 'idea' of god has to go away at all, I mean it'd be nice but I think that's a pretty futile goal. I can't say on the 90% still doing evil things, but if you're implying it's a lot, isn't that really a problem of Christianity, more than it is one of atheism? The ecumenical belief system, ironically, is a response to an environmental condition that's making it difficult for churches to 'reproduce' adherents / donators. The church is evolving :). Do you think the church should focus more on the repenting?
. So to clarify, I don't think the general population is chomping at the bit for a full disclosure of "no-God" to massacre people. I think it's more of a mental conditioning to the population to then have them follow their demands later.
Who is this, in this sentence? Who are the 'leaders' of this movement? I don't recognize anyone as a 'leader' but I also don't see it as a 'movement.'
Now, I am considered hateful if I don't comply to the foolish banter of gender identities AND you will believe that I am hateful and intolerant, if you don't already think that now. How much more of a push is it that I am not only hateful, but now harmful to society? If I am harmful, what should happen to people that hurt the society? If we follow the constant slide of society, we can assume that it gets worse and less biblical, less "Godly" so to speak. At what point is my view irrelevant and also damaging to life in America and would have to be "eliminated"?
I don't think you're hateful by default, but I also don't get what difference it makes to anyone if someone says "refer to me as a she". I mean how many people in your life have you demanded to see their genitals if they said "I'm Mister this" or "I'm Miss that"? All of a sudden it's a huge problem, I don't get why. I don't think you're harmful to society, but I also think that you have to expect to face community consequences if you're behaving in a way your society doesn't like (this has been going on since we crawled out of the ocean, the out-casting of a negative factor). Your view isn't any more relevant or irrelevant than anyone else, and no, it doesn't have to be eliminated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
So because I believe in God, it must mean he created it (hard to prove and hard to imagine) and since you believe in evolution, it must mean that life did arise from non-life (hard to prove and hard to imagine). But to clarify, God is alive so anything made from him would come from life, correct?
Wouldn't life have to come from non-life in either case? If all of life comes from life and can only come from life, and God is alive...where did he come from? This is what I'm saying when I mean you're only adding one more mystery, not any clarification. If the answer is "well God didn't come from life, he IS life," or something along those lines, then some form of life (God) had to come from non-life (whatever made God). This is a problem, wouldn't you agree?
As to creation, we do have examples of things having to be created together. Something like a bee. It's needs are directly related to the types of bees in a hive. Without the workers, the queen doesn't exist, without the queen the workers don't exist. Also, the food source for these creatures would have to evolve at the same time that these different bees evolved, and find each other. Mathematically, it can't happen.
This is one of those problems where our shared inability to imagine the amount of time in question inhibits us from understanding possible versus probable. I'm not sure I understand what your objection is here, is it that whatever bees eat would have had to be here before bees? Can you explain your mathematical comment?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a virus doesn't just pop out of thin air, does it?
No, it doesn't, but my point is you can witness evolution today very easily. Covid's variants are all examples of it: a living thing (virus) changing in response to environment (hostile reproductive environment post-vaccine). The delta variant, for example, was resistant to the vaccine, and was more fit to reproduce, so it became the dominant strain, until we fought that off, etc. etc., then a more resistant strain came and we figure that out, etc. etc. That's just evolution in real time. I know it doesn't mean that a virus in two generations is going to become a koala bear, but that's still the textbook definition of evolution.
As to the why, there could be as many reasons as humans have intentions, BUT my personal thought on it is that it is done on purpose to push the whole "no-God" agenda. If you can prove there is no God, then you can make up whatever rules you want. Without an absolute (God, Bible, etc), then anything that is wanted to be done can be done by reasoning of man. I.E. When people like me are in the way of progress, who's to say that a "humane way of getting rid of them" would not be okay? There is no God, so no absolute morals or any punishment or reward at the end to pay for the "evil" or "good" life. No such thing as a conscience or a soul, just a matter of electronic connections and chemical compounds. Meh, what's the matter with a little snuffing out of those chemicals? It's not a soul right? It's just some tissue.
Do you really think that? First of all, if there's "no-God" agenda, whoever's pushing it is doing a piss poor job considering the percentage of people on earth who believe in some god or another (above 90%)! And I don't think anyone who thinks like me, that there's no god watching us, thinks that human life is value-less. I think this is a bit of a boogey man image, a straw man. I've never talked to an atheist who thought "Once we get rid of the Ten Commandments in schools that are used by the entire public and not just Christians, THEN we can finally enact our eugenics program!" Me, I think once we get rid of the ten commandments, then the muslims and hindi kids that go to my kids' public school will feel like they're on a little more even footing. That's the limit of my evil, I guess. Can I ask about this bolded bit though?
Are you saying that if you found out that there was no God, you'd immediately start just committing crimes, killing people you didn't like, stealing, and basically just being a menace to society? I don't think that's true, that's not the impression I get. It's not a soul that keeps me from doing it, or promise of reward, or fear of punishment, can't I just not kill someone because human life is valuable, as that person gets just the one, like me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
By saying they are discovered doesn't mean that they just evolved. We haven't found every animal there is non Earth and new species are showing up all the time. Within a "kind" of animal, there will always be new ones showing up, but it will only be within that kind. Such as dogs, they will come out with new breeds of dog, but never a new breed of dog/cat mix. They can't reproduce within their kind to each other. I know that a cat and a rabbit can produce a "cabbit" or a donkey and horse will produce a mule, but those off spring cannot reproduce themselves.
This view seems a function of a lack of perspective on how much time you're talking about. No, we haven't witnessed it, nor should we expect to, this kind to kind evolution, in our lifetimes, because those kinds of changes take, at minimum, tens of thousands of years. I get that this is a frustration with evolutionary theory and a lot of people will use to say "well, it's not true then, since I have never seen two deer produce a turtle as offspring." It's like taking a circle and turning it into a square: we want it to be noticeable, to be done in a short amount of time, but evolution takes 100,000 tiny little adjustments to do it.
I know time can do anything in an evolution theory, but can time even create life out of nothing?
Time doesn't "do" anything in evolutionary theory. It's simply a span between two things. Can life arise from non-life, then, seems to be the question. My answer is yes, because we're here, and everything we need to be here (elements and time) we can demonstrate as extant. I think you believe life must arise from non life too...if you believe the genesis creation account, right? In that context, you find it completely reasonable that it happened, in spite of having one more mystery in the mix now.
If it happens so freely, then we should be able to see it happen over and over again today and it should be observable.
We do see this happen over and over again today. Ever heard of Covid 19? :) And its subsequent variants? All of that is demonstrable and observable evolution. And if Covid 19 is a political football for you, it can apply to every virus, the flu, the common cold, all of them are alive.
You can create the amino acids, but what about the rest? Can that same spark source put those acids in order? Were the conditions right for life to begin in the first place? There are a TON of variables for this to happen.
Again, no one expected life to arise in the span of 10 or 50 or 500 years. The point is if you extrapolate that the scientifically agreed upon building blocks of life, amino acids, can synthesize spontaneously and randomly, and you have 3.5 billion years for them to do so, then it's not unreasonable to believe that these could synthesize into some sort of sequence that is driven to survive and reproduce. Once you have those two drives, you have what is essential for life. The math of it certainly does make it improbable! But improbable and impossible are rather far apart.
They are trying to sham the population
You're an interesting sort, David. Here, 'they' refers to 'evolutionists.' First, I don't think that's a term that people who accept evolutionary science would call themselves, it sounds more like a pejorative, but maybe you didn't mean it that way, so benefit of the doubt there. But WHY would they want to sham the public? What's to gain? For whose agenda? It's a strange claim, one I've heard before but no one ever really explains. Like who benefits from the 'scam' that the Colorado River DIDN'T actually make the Grand Canyon, but something else did? Is it the Colorado River Lobby covering up the real cause? What would be the point of such a cover up, in either case?
The salvation message is clear. The "how to" on being a Christian is also very clear, but when it comes to knowing the mind of God and the "why's" of it all, it remains a mystery. I am a "why" kind of person and it makes me pull my hair when I can't figure out the intentions of a person.
Sounds familiar. You're going to get "mysterious are his ways" sorts of answers as to why, or "it's not our place to question." If that's the case then he should have written a less curious code into us, I say. I respect that you're a person of devout faith for sure, but more that you're willing to admit the frustrations and questions you have. I completely understand, personally, the drive to have some grand explanation, a comfort that we can fall back on in times of real despair, or an explanation for things we can't understand.
Why doesn't God just the help the person in need and let me sleep?
Excellent question, and gets to the heart of the utility of intercessory prayer (or any prayer at all).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
In regards to evolution, I do believe the science that is being used. So the biology of cell structure and such. The part I have ought is where they start making leaps of faith that is against the laws of science. Such as, the first law of thermodynamics is that everything runs into a state of disorder. To this, the world should become less stable but the evolution process goes against the grain with it.
I'm curious what you mean that the process of evolution somehow goes against the first law of thermodynamics. New life forms continue to pop up, to be discovered, to confound science. I would think tending toward order rather than chaos would look more like the number of life forms DEcreasing rather than INcreasing. But that's not what happens. It's also important to note that we have a tendency as humans to look at everything in our own time scale (this shortcoming is a byproduct of our own evolution, actually!), so what might look orderly to us for a couple of thousand years might be just a blip on the cosmic calendar, you know?
nother is that any biology textbook will tell you that every living creature comes from another living creature, but again, evolution flies in the face of that rule.
Evolution doesn't address this at all, actually. You're talking about the origin of life itself here, not the speciation of living things. And this is called the black swan fallacy: just because we've never seen it happen, it can't happen. I agree, all living things we know of today seem to come from parents, so I can see how this conclusion can be reached very easily. But then I'd point out that it only takes ONE TIME for life to arise from non-life for that to no longer be true. For this, I would point out the Urey Miller experiments. Is it perfect, does it definitively prove abiogensis? Not as much as it created a fully formed living thing we can talk to, but, it did take elements that were present at the time of earth's coalescence, it did simulate the environment of that time in the presence of these elements, and it did show that amino acids (the building blocks of life) started to form. It's not really possible for us to conclusively prove what happened, because it happened over hundreds of millions of years.
How was the Grand Canyon made? (something close to me since I live in AZ) If you gave the typical response of "The Colorado River" then I have another law that should stop that. It is called the law of gravity. Look up the source of the Colorado River. It starts at about 2500 ft elevation. How would it get to the top of the Grand Canyon at near 7000 ft to start the millions year process of erosion? There is so much wishful thinking when it comes to the evolution process that it is mathematically and scientifically impossible. But, to each his own I guess.
What's this have to do with evolution? I'm not a huge geology guy, but I would imagine some research might reveal things like glaciers that aren't there anymore, I don't know, never looked into it. I don't know why this is here, but it definitely doesn't touch on any evolutionary topic. I'm curious about what you think is "wishful" about it, though. What is it "wishing" to do?
Honestly, I don't know why God would or would not intervene in anyone's life. The fella who had a torn knee also had a brother die as a baby from spinal meningitis that was possibly contracted from a vaccine. In fact, two babies contracted the disease when vaccinated near the same time, one died, the other didn't. To me, it is a mystery and I wish I knew the answer to this. It does bug me when I see stuff like this. It's hard to say if I should expect a healing for everything since I love God, or not expect a healing and be grateful if it does happen.
This is the question of intercessory prayer and what it's good for, but another topic for another time :). I'm mainly curious about how believers square all this without recognizing how closely this all resembles a coping mechanism and an abusive relationship all at the same time. I know that sounds like I'm being condescending, but I promise you having had several very close encounters with this mechanism, I am not. I admired when my aunt and uncle kept their faith after their eldest son drowned, but I couldn't understand it either.
I suppose it's easy to say "Must be God" when we don't know the answer.
I find this is pretty common. Really I think the key difference between a believer and a non believer is that a non believer simply stops at "we don't know the answer," where the believer appends "So it's probably [diety]."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Are these two examples of the improbable or is there another thing happening? If this were the possible, though not the norm, couldn't we reproduce the results with the technology we have today?
Sorry, forgot to ask something specific to this. If it's NOT just the improbable, and it's some other explanation, what is that other explanation, do you think? And how would you go about convincing someone that it was such an explanation? Can we test for it? Or are we really just saying "well, this is really weird, and appears impossible, so, guess it's a miracle!"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
You answered the "get here" fine. I think the whole evolution thing is a fool's religion. It's a lot "believe what I say" parroting. I know most people don't take all the evolution theory whole heartedly, but I'm amazed that a man of your intellect would lean in that direction. What part of the evolution thing appeals to you?
It doesn't "appeal" to me, it just makes sense to me, an important distinction. I can't pick what I believe to be true based on its appeal. It's not super appealing to think I'm just another collection of atoms, one that will exist for a quarter of a blink of an eye, will matter to so few, and will disappear and eventually disintegrate back into atoms. It's not comforting to think the people I love who have died have all done that, and all the people I love will do that, and we won't be reunited in some sky mansion. I want that to be true. I'm 47 and I miss my grandma all the time, she's dead 30 years. But I can't make myself believe that when I see what the evidence is. When you examine it, like I said somewhere else, though, and you think about it, it makes our individual existence so much more special. So much more important to me. And not just mine.
We can witness evolution happening every day, there's a massive amount of evidence for it, and every time I've pointed out that, I run into the 'god of the gaps' argument. I can't imagine, for example, why a god who so badly wants us to believe he's there and he loves us and that sort of stuff, at risk of eternal punishment, would leave so much evidence to the contrary. I'm glad to further the discussion of evolution, but I will freely tell you I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I'd just be paraphrasing much more learned men than I. To me, the scientific evidence of how mankind came to be, and how individual people come to exist, not only makes more sense and comports with the laws of physics, but it's absolutely moving, more moving than the biblical account because we can see evidence of it. And not anecdotal evidence, like studied evidence.
What makes you not believe in miracles (your definition is good)? Take medical miracles for example, I know a guy that was diagnosed with a brain aneurism at the Mayo Hospital. Multiple doctors saw this and they were going to perform a crucial surgery the next day. He woke up feeling different and told them that he was fine. They checked it out and the issue was gone. Another was a guy I know got his leg ran over on a job site and tore a knee tendon apart. They went in for surgery and found the tendon completely healed on its own where the day before it was torn. X-rays showed a small scar where the tendon healed together in the middle of the tendon.Are these two examples of the improbable or is there another thing happening? If this were the possible, though not the norm, couldn't we reproduce the results with the technology we have today?
Improbable, that's all. Here's my argument: the human body has a long demonstrated history of healing itself. The brain especially. Perhaps something unusual happened in the brain chemistry (we've seen this). Perhaps the diagnosis was wrong (we've seen these too). What I haven't seen is an entity intervening for this sort of thing, and by opening up this can of worms and saying it was God (just to use a name), then you have suddenly opened the other questions that are harder to answer. Why this person, and not the baby born with cancer, for example, there's a whole list. For my worldview, the answer is "human body doing what human body does" for the former, and for the baby born with cancer, it's just the worst luck anyone can imagine. It's not comforting, I know. But is "God planned for your baby to have cancer and die before they could take their first step, praise his name!" really all that comforting?
As far as why we can't reproduce these things, and I really wish we could, the answer is that technology gets better every day, but it's still a people problem. We don't have all the knowledge, we don't have star trek tech, but we're working on it. Add to that that while we are all humans, and share 99.9% of our DNA, there are still variations we can't find or understand that might have contributed.
While no two NDEs are the same, there are characteristic features that are commonly observed in NDEs. These characteristics include a perception of seeing and hearing apart from the physical body, passing into or through a tunnel, encountering a mystical light, intense and generally positive emotions, a review of part or all of their prior life experiences, encountering deceased loved ones, and a choice to return to their earthly life.2"
This is an excellent question! Again, not an expert, but I have thoughts. The brain is REALLY, REALLY trying to find a reason to keep itself alive because survival is the very first (of two) jobs that DNA has. The light stuff, the tunnel stuff, that's all attributable to oxygen deprivation (your brain starts to shut down non-critical functions like eyesight to send the oxygenated blood to things like "HEARTBEAT", for example). The intense positive emotions, the prior life experiences, all of that is the brain trying to find something, anything, to continue fighting for. Many people, for example, report seeing their children just before they wake up. What's more powerful to a person trying to survive than a vision of their children as babies, even when they're grown, when they need you the most? And, if you're working from a Christian framework, do a lot of Christians report heading down an UNPLEASANT path, toward damnation? Honest question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Glad to answer.
1. How did we get here, as in mankind?
All evidence points to being a product of evolution. I'm presuming this is what you mean by "get here", if I'm wrong, please clarify and I'll be glad to expound.
2. What do you attribute miracles? (I.E. healings, answered prayers, medical miracles, etc)
If we define miracles as something that acts against the laws of nature for the benefit of some individual, then I do not believe in miracles. Otherwise, I think you'd be talking about the extremely improbable but not impossible. As above, feel free to take issue with my definition of miracle, and I'll be glad to discuss.
3. How do you explain NDE's (Near death experiences) and how they are all the same and follow the same route regardless of country and religious belief?
The NDE experience is attributable to a brain going through severe survival crisis, oxygen deprivation, etc. The reason they're all the same (Are they though? another topic, I guess, as I don't think Aboriginees who have an NDE report seeing Jesus, for example) is because we all have remarkably similar wiring brain wise, plus some cultural memes that would pollute our experiences. Sort of like how most alien abduction stories have many similar notes, most of which are informed by our own science fiction stories, if that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Okay, thanks for responding. I just don't think you're dealing with reality, I think you have a sadly myopic view of the world, but you can't be blamed, you were groomed for it, right? Indoctrinated by authority at a young age and so on. Good luck on your crusade against all these boogey men and women though!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
SHOWING PORNOGRAPHIC BOOKS TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS IS NOT PEDOPHILIA??
Please give me the titles of these books so we can decide if it's pornography. Hint: Are You THere God It's Me Margaret is not a porno.
I already answered your question in my last post.
No, what you said was "stop promoting the agenda." I'm asking you what that means in practical terms. Who has to stop doing what. When pressed, you said:
The media, schools, children's shows, entertainment etc.
What should 'media' specifically STOP doing that's currently seen by you as 'promoting the agenda.' What children's shows are going to make Russia decide it's time to attack us? Which entertainment specifically is China looking at and saying "You know what, two more Sam Smith singles and America will be ready to fall!"?
You are on the verge of 'raving.'
Second of all, teaching society that men can menstruate is a big problem.
Who is teaching this? Where?
Elementary school children have sexual urges, guy. Why should they not understand them? Why don't they need to know that it's fine to have these urges?You know, I thought you were a reasonable guy, but after a comment like that, I think you might actually be a pedophile. ...Talking in certain ways is actually considered sexual activity. That's why you can actually be arrested for talking to kids in sexual ways. Even if it wasn't thought that is still very horrible.
Sounds like to you, anything to do with sex is scary, and every adult is a predator even if they're just trying to tell you it's not a huge deal if you jerk off when you're horny. Teachers who tell a class of fifth graders that it's okay to have sexual attractions, sexual urges, and if you don't have them, cool, but you will soon so don't freak out, they're not pedophiles and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSGENDERISM. I'm talking about sex education, and not just from teachers, from parents. THere aren't many states in the union today where you can be arrested for talking about a girl having her period, or lose your job for telling your 10th grade health class it's not a huge deal to be gay. It doesn't make you a pedophile.
Yes it does. If a boy thinks he is a girl and wants a vagina, then you have to talk to a child about genitals, or just don't be a creep.
At what age should a girl learn about her period? This is also "talk about genitals." Does that make someone a creep?
Again it looks to me like most of your issues are about pedophilia and your fear of it becoming somehow pervasive based on transgender people being able to just be transgender people, and anything to do with sex in general. I'm with you on pedophilia. I'm not with you that anything to do with sex = pedophilia, or LGBTQ+ = pedophiles, or what transgender people existing, or denying it, has to do with sex education. You're really just ranting, and I know you keep saying you don't have a problem with LGTBQ+ folks, but honestly it's starting to sound like a bit of a fig leaf for your standard issue bigotry. Same line Christians use against homosexuals: hate the sin not the sinner. Really it's just the sinner they hate, because the sin is none of their business in the first place, if the sin is preferring to present as a woman when you were born with a penis.
Created:
Posted in:
Here, earlier, you said this:
Simple. Stop promoting this to kids. Stop promoting this ideology. That is the solution.
To whom is this addressed?
Also, teaching kids about consent, about sexual attraction, and about their genitals has nothing to do with transgenderism. Not sure why you brought it up, can you clarify the connection? Because it sounds like you're really against pedophilia (same here, except I'm against what's actually pedophilia, not children getting fulsome and accurate sex education from an early age) and teaching kids about sex overall. Neither of those are in any way tied to transgenderism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So why the push for this transgender ideology?
I don't see a "push" for "transgender ideology" anywhere. To me, a business hanging a LGBTQ+ symbol in their window isn't a push for an ideology. It's saying we don't care if you're gay, you can buy muffins here if you're one of these groups. I don't see protests all over the place, not sure where you live that you do. Florida maybe?
If an ideology is preaching, that men can be women, men can menstruate, men can go into women's bathrooms, men can compete against women in sports, theirs are more than two genders, etc. then that is going to shut down society very fast. I hope I don't need to explain how that is bad
Sorry, but you do. How does this "shut down" society? The rest of the Hitler stuff is a ridiculous comp. Too ridiculous to even address.
"It has been reported that Governor Jerry Brown signed into a law that would make it a crime to “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient’s “preferred name or pronouns.” SB 179 (“Gender Recognition Act”) was signed into law back in October. The law will allow individuals to update state-issued identification documents (including birth certificates, state identification cards, and driver’s licenses) to select “nonbinary” as their gender."""It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status," the bill reads."
I looked into both of these in earlier discussions and never denied they existed; I said I can't find any instances of anyone being fined or criminally charged under these laws. Sounds like it addressed a problem that didn't exist and doesn't exist today.
Making pornographic books, and comic books and putting them in kids elementary, middle and high schools. That is not pedophillia?
No, it is not, actually.
Not sex education. They are talking to them about sexual attraction. Who they are attracted to at young ages, and why they are. They are talking to kids about how to give concent. If that is not pedophillia then I don't know what is.
I agree, you don't seem to know what pedophilia is.
KIDS SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT ABOUT WHO THEY ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO!Kids (especially elementary schoolers) shouldn't need to know about that. THEY ARE KIDS FOR CHRISTS SAKE
Elementary school children have sexual urges, guy. Why should they not understand them? Why don't they need to know that it's fine to have these urges?
I was going to address more of your post but it seems we've been over that ground. Can you please tell me how do you solve your perceived 'promotion of the transgender ideology' satisfactorily. What would you like specific people to stop doing specifically. What should the transgender community stop doing that is currently 'advancing their agenda'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Okay, thanks. My clumsily phrased question was not intentional, it should have been more clear that while it doesn't have to be legislation based, I'd like to understand how you'd solve the problem you think transgenderism is causing. Thanks all the same, you too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So, one of the many things I would change is the “Admit trans women are women or be a bad person!” mindset which offers insults and deplatforming instead of open discussion and disagreement.
This isn't a public policy or a law, though, you want to change or enact, and it's not really a 'solution' per se. It seems like this is your main objection: that disagreeing that trans women are biological women results in judgement by others. It's something you disagree with, which I support your right to do. How would you propose to change it? Seems like legislatively it'd be problematic, but maybe you have an idea I can't come up with.
I don't want you to put in any more effort than I am, I'm just asking so I can better understand what you think the threat is. So far it's that you disagree that trans women and biological females are the same, a position I agree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
you won’t find my solution enlightening as it would involve you… and people like you recognizing the problems with the transgender movement and social contagion.
This is exactly what I'm asking. Even if I don't find the solution feasible, it would at least help me understand what it is you think needs to be addressed, then I can inquire as to the why's. It seems super difficult for people who are apparently in some way anti-transgenderism to elucidate exactly what it is that's such a huge threat about them. Go 'perfect world' solution, doesn't have to be passable legislation, just if you could have your wish, what specifically would you change?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Again, the question is how it benefits society, and why do we need it.
How does transgenderism benefit society? I don't think it does, at least not in any way you'd find beneficial, but I also don't see it as deleterious to society either. It's benign at worst.
This ideology is trying to propose an idea that will hurt society, therefore hurting me, and in doing so infringing on my rights.
Okay, so it's an ideology that's proposing an idea. What rights of yours are being infringed upon, or do you FEAR will be infringed upon? c
This ideology is influencing people to believe in the idea that any resistance to the ideology should be punished. You can already see this in California and Canada where you can be arrested for misgendering someone.
I cannot find anyone in California who's ever been arrested for misgendering someone. Or even fined under the California law. If this ever happened, I feel like at least ONE conservative news outlet would have made a crusade out of it, but it doesn't seem to have ever happened.
I think that all people of all different groups have the same capacity of violence. It's the pedophilia that is very prominent in this community, with adults talking to kids about consent on YouTube Kids, adults talking to kids about who they should be and are attracted to sexually. That is pretty pedophilic to me.
That's not what pedophilia is, not remotely. No wonder we're having all this trouble, you seem to have a different and very WIDE definition of pedophilia. Adults talking to kids about consent is sex education and not pedophilia. Adults talking to kids about whoever they're sexually attracted to, in the context of "you like what you like, it doesn't make you a freak or any less worthy of respect" is not pedophilia.
Democrats right now are pushing the idea that kids should have the right to transition without parent consent.
No reputable news organization I can find is reporting this, and it doesn't make any sense on the surface. How would a child pay for this procedure, for one. It sounds like the kind of thing that one of your self-selecting news outlets would turn into a clickbait headline.
Now, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION for the problem you see? I'm not saying you need to have written a bill that could pass a state legislature. I'm saying you see a problem, and it bothers you quite a bit, so you must have an ideal solution in mind. What is it? What does it look like in the broadest terms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Is it any more or less pointless than posting here at all? I don't understand the problem, which is why I figured I'd ask for a solution, so I could work backwards and see if that helped. Otherwise we are just going to both state our positions over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yes, then I changed my question to something more interesting to me: what's the solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I didn't say I don't understand it, I just know those talking points (some of which are redundant so as to make the problem look bigger), and I've covered them in other threads, which is why I asked for a solution, at least we can talk about it differently. Your hilarious description of the WA state law tells me all I really need to know, you're not super interested in any sort of substantive discussion and would rather be king of the message boards, to which I say mazel tov, good for you, it doesn't interest me.
Don't forget to drop a Dunning Kroger in there, dude. Thanks, have a good one!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re just in denial.
And I think you've got your panties in a wad over nothing, so I guess there endeth our debate. I always like how up in arms right side folks get over transgender story hours which have literally killed zero children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Tried to add this in edit but it's too old now. Just to avoid getting lost in the weeds:
What is the solution you'd propose to what you consider to be the problem?
As with Liam I'm not trying to trick anyone, I just think this might help me understand what you're seeing that's different from what I see.
Created:
Posted in:
But the transgender movement, on a societal level, has been steadily moving their goalposts forward. The goals trend like so:Tolerance—> Acceptance—> Celebration—> Incentivisation/expansionI’m ok with the first goal, maybe the second, but not the third and fourth. T
I don't know that I agree that "incentivization or expansion" is one of their goals.
I don't have any problem with any of the other three. I really am not super interested in Canadian law, and my work computer has enough weird searches in it, so I'm going to skip the Peterson stuff and just say that I don't think the LGTBQ population is trying to grab new adherents, but I certainly can understand that more societal acceptance, more outreach, more 'normalization' might make people somewhat uncomfortable, but that's the same with all change. I'm sure people in the 60's had to get used to sitting whites with blacks at lunch counters, didn't happen in a day.
WHat actual policies are they pursuing that you consider overreach?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The idea that someone has a right to their own self identity and the right to define their sexuality in a way that they see fit is all true. I'm just not sure how it causes "a problem" for "society."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Maybe there's a more useful way we can have this discussion.
I'll acknowledge that you have a problem with transgenderism.
Can you tell me how you'd propose to solve it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yea, with all due respect you should probably do at least a little research into the topic before arguing for it.
Did I miss the part where someone named Jazz was part of our national discussion? I'm not making any arguments on someone named Jazz. And I've gotten plenty of exposure to transgender people, none of them have said "Why don't you try being transgender, join our ideology!" It's just not that big a deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Is this ideology good for society? Why do we need it? If we don't need it and it's not beneficial for society, then why are we pushing it?
It's good for society for all people to have the right to self ownership. It's a fundamental human right.
It isn't infringing on rights, but the transgender ideology wants our rights infringed.
This isn't what you said earlier: you said the ideology is limited to the idea that men can become women and women can become men. So with such a limited scope, what rights do you think this ideology is trying to infringe upon of yours?
our culture is taking in this ideology, and pushing it to be a part of law, which I have a problem with.
So our culture is taking the ideology that a man can become a woman and woman can become a man wants what to become a law? This isn't clear at all.
The difference between the Catholic Churches pedophilia, and the transgender communities' pedophilia, is that true catholics all over the world don't waste a second to condemn these people...With the church, there are cases where children are molested, but these cases condemn, arrest, and charge the pedophile. I don't see any drag queen pedophiles being arrested and charged.
Catholics protect and empower molesters by shielding them from prosecution and relocating offending priests to other parishes, where they almost always do the same thing. As far as not forcing their views into societal norms, then why does anyone care about what a candidates religious values are? And literally EVERY religious organization forces their beliefs onto children. It's the only reason religion continues to exist. You mention there are "a lot" of examples, can you define "a lot"? Is it possible you don't see drag queen pedophiles being arrested because...it doesn't happen as much as you're worried about? Seems like that would be a more sensible explanation for the lack of arrests, no?
Now don't hear what I am not saying. I am not saying all transgender people are violent.
What occurs more often do you think: transgender pedophilia (not children going to story hours which you lump in here, that's not pedophilia) or transgender violence?
They shouldn't have the right as non-adults who can't drink, drive, smoke, own a gun, etc, to medically transition or take drugs and hormones.
Don't all minors require parental consent for prescriptions and operations? I don't know where you live but kids in my state can't just go get a prescription for something. Are there a lot of 11 year olds just going to doctors and getting prescriptions where you live? Because if so, maybe THAT's a problem to deal with before you start worrying about who is dressing how.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
It can be seen on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, FascistBook, Twitter, corporate campaign ads (eg, Bud Light, Victoria’s Secret, Nike, so on and so forth).
This isn't promoting the idea that men can become women and vice versa, there's no "I did it, so everyone should too!" component to these. It's just letting people be people. It's just capitalism.
You even had the first “reality” trans kid (pre-teen) Jazz who transition before the world. The boy now suffers from depression, anxiety, and never feels like himself. Looking at what appears to be a girl in the mirror, but always feeling like the boy he is/was.
No idea what you're talking about, sorry.
All the left loons and trans activists themselves promote that idea.
Which idea, that whoever Jazz is suffers from depression?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It doesn't infringe on any rights at the moment, but I am worried about the future problems with this ideology's growth and popularity. Again ideological subversion is a very deadly thing.
Ok, so there isn't a huge problem now, but if transgender people aren't sufficiently shamed and marginalized now, we might got a a place where....what happens, exactly? And what's your solution to the issue as you see it?
Again republicans' don't care about the existence of drag queens, we care about the drag queens who are identifying themselves with this ideology, and being pedophilic.
So isn't the problem with pedophilia and not drag queens? I'd say you have bigger bites to take from the pedophilia apple: start by stripping the Catholic church of all their government protections, tax incentives, etc. After all, pedophilia in church settings is far more prevalent than it is in the drag community, and if your main issue is you want to protect children from predation, I can get with that no problem, but by starting with transgenders and not religious groups writ large, you're tripping over a dollar to pick up a penny. If you could discover that the rate of child abuse by transgender individuals is well below child abuse by the clergy, would you change your crusade?
Do you see how this could lead to pedophilia, and other bad things for kids especially?
I suppose in rare cases, but I would say that churches are more dangerous. How many children were molested at a drag queen story hour last year? How many were molested by members of their clergy, regardless of denomination?
What other bad things? I mean besides pedophilia, that's pretty bad.
I claimed that they believe that men can become women and women can become men.
This is a belief with a lot of semantical nuance. If someone believes this, what's the impact on you? Or your community.
. Now adults should have the right to do this, but I don't have to agree with the legitimacy of it.
So your peers then do not have the right to self identify?
Again, I don't have a problem with the transgender people. I do have a problem with the ideology.
You didn't really describe an ideology. You described one belief that I'm not sure is even an accurate representation, like where do you get it? You already said you've never talked to a transgender person, and it seems getting a group's ideological stance from a source that fundamentally opposes their ideological stance is probably not the best way to get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I mean the ideology of transgenderism, which suggests and promotes the idea that men can become women and women can become men.
Where do you see the promotion of the idea that men can become women and vice versa? That doesn't sound like what I've seen at all. What I've seen is people just wanting their rights to be respected, including the right to be whatever they want to be, however they want to be it, provided they don't infringe on the rights of someone else. I know in the past you've expressed some concern about what might look like "grooming" but is in fact just outreach. It's important for a person who might be around your age to feel like there's a community for them, even if they feel like they might be transgender, that they're not alone.
It goes against science and biology, because science and biology state with empirical evidence that there are men and their are women. Men have a penis and testes, different body structure, and more testosterone in the body than females. Females have a vagina, ovary's, and a different body structure, and more osterigin than males.The transgenderism ideology denies this biological fact.
Science and biology state that there are organisms born with penises and people born with vaginas. Transgenderism does not in any way deny this. THe man / woman thing isn't a scientific thing, it's lexicographic. If those two words are deleted from human knowledge, man and woman, then what's the impact that undermines societies as we know them, exactly?
Do you think transgenders should have to hide that they're one gender or another? Or that a little girl at six years old cannot discover at 14 that she is transgender, and opt to pursue that with other transgenders? Should transgenders be limited in what jobs they can have? Or what hours they can be seen in public?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, I would like to challenge anyone or multiple people to argue in defense of this ideology.
Glad to participate, but what is the specific "ideology" as you see it?
because the perspective of transgenderism goes against science and biology, and I will stick to the side of biology.
Please also let me know what the 'perspective of transgenderism' is, and how it goes against science and biology (transgenderism is nothing new, as someone points out, so it has perpetuated throughout human history).
THen I'm glad to discuss, but I don't want to guess at what your positions are and get them wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, sure, every culture cares a little? Not much, but little.
Okay, which culture cares only a little, as compared to which culture that cares a lot then?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am asking you what about the rights of parents being ignored about their concerns on what they wish their own children are being taught against their wishes.
They have their right to express their opinion on the curriculum offered. They absolutely have the right to not sign permission slips for things like drag queen story hours. They also have the right to pursue educational options that comport with their beliefs. Pretty sure I said that earlier. What they do not have is the right to impose their opinion on the rest of the community by demanding NO ONE learn about them. It's pretty simple.
We are not taking "the other "changing room, and you know it, stop being so ignorant and disingenuous.
You mean the bathroom? How does that make a difference to what I said? Changing rooms in the states are commonly called fitting rooms, sorry for the misunderstanding.
The women can look after their own "records" if allowed to compete against other women and not forced to compete against men.
Okay, sounds good. You're really into women's sports and don't want some dude becoming the all time leader in every category in the WNBA. I'm not super wound up about women's sports, to say the least, and I would imagine if transgender people were asked to give in on this one issue (You must compete against the same gender assigned at birth) so that they could feel more comfortable that the proud boys aren't going to threaten to burn down a library where a transgender is doing a story hour, or a bar where there's an adult drag show attended by only adults, I bet they would.
Indeed, from what I have been reading and watching all the aggression is coming from the trannies.
I wonder if this has anything to do with your news sources.
Created:
Posted in:
Wow, it's almost as if it's counterproductive to try to jam all of American society into only two columns...I mean it's like intelligent people might have nuanced opinions on various issues that aren't right down the line of whatever some outlet is describing as Democrat or Republican. Politics isn't the WWE, as it turns out! Who knew!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
@Best.Korea
Caring for others is seen in all cultures, even those uncontacted tribal cultures around the world. We are not solitary animals.
This is scientifically true. There is no "culture" as I understand the term that as a whole doesn't care about its members, otherwise it wouldn't be a culture at all. Humans are, like all primates and I would imagine all mammals at least, social creatures that are evolutionarily inclined to care for each other, for exactly the reason Slainte points out. Yes, there are many exceptions on a specimen to specimen level but to say "Some cultures care, some cultures don't care," that's just inaccurate.
True. Not caring for others is also seen in plenty of cultures. So there is some "care, dont care" mix.
What's your example of a culture that, as a whole, doesn't care about other people at all?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So are you saying that transexuals & and homosexuals have none of this.
I'm saying they're being infringed upon, and the more protections you take away from minorities, the more likely they are to be infringed upon by other non-state actors.
Well putting the shoe on the other foot this can be said for parents not wanting explicit sexual literature about gender and homosexuality in school libraries.
THere are many steps between "explicit sexual literature available in school libraries" and "complete and total ban." Elementary school libraries are not an appropriate place for sexually explicit literature. But "My Two Mommies" is not sexually explicit literature, wouldn't you agree? Banning it because it's about a girl with two women parents isn't the same as banning it because it has graphic depictions of cunnilingus. Be realistic.
ETA parents do have the right to determine their child's education, and can do so today. If you don't like what's taught in schools, shop around until you find one that comports with your worldview. WHat you don't have the right to do is dictate what everyone ELSE can be educated on, in a PUBLIC school, because it makes you feel a certain way. Public school should be inclusive for the entire public. THat includes transgender kids, kids of gay parents, straight, gay, whatever, because that's the public. THat's not to say every child should have access to every book at any age, but again, elementary school libraries shouldn't offer 50 Shades of Grey, which is a straight cis sex farce. It's age propriety that rules the day, not content.
Are women not allowed then to have their own safe spaces where they can feel comfortable and secure? A man dressed as a woman in a woman's changing room makes them feel unsafe. Or don't you agree?
I'm not a woman, so I think if you want to hear about women's safe spaces, you ought to talk to them. None of the women in my life spend one second worrying about if the person in the other fitting room has a dick, and I've not seen a spate of sexual assaults or any real problem from having gender neutral bathrooms. But again, it's really a question for women.
If women have their sports encroached upon, indeed invaded and taken over by men just because they say they are women, how long do you think women's sport will last?
So one of your top problems with transgender legislation is that it doesn't do enough to protect records in women's sports? Seems obscure.
Created: